Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2237437 times)

norman6538 · « **Reply #1875 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:28:02 AM »

Neptune you are absolutely right about the wrong numbers from Raymond Head.

Neptune how did you get the 5:1 ratio in this statement?
"With a fully rotating pendulum , as opposed to an oscillating one ,
The bob has a down force at bottom dead centre of 5 times its static
weight ."

I did my suggested tests and they do not look promising but will continue to persue that.
I was very disappointed to see a short pendulum swing seriously dampen the pendulum cycles. A longer swing
was more consistant with a regular pendulum.
Norman

johnny874 · « **Reply #1876 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:28:49 PM »

Quote from: neptune on January 08, 2012, 07:14:02 PM

Hi Johnny and thanks for that input . I am not so hot on mathematics , but I found a simple formula that will help me . Aparrently , centrifugal force = mass x velocity squared , and divide the result by Radius .I am hunting parts to build an off balance wheel model , but need to get some local help with welding . I have reached the reluctant conclusion that in its basic form , the 2SO is not overunity . I think Milkovic`s pump just makes the pumping easier because it is a more convenient way to do the job .I also think at this stage that my hero , Raymond Head has got his calculations wrong . In a video he shows a 140 pound pendulum lifting a claimed 70 pounds , with an estimated hand push of about 10 pounds . His lever is 3 to 1 . So in reality , about 50 pounds of the "load "is used to balance the static weight of the pendulum , and the real load is 70 minus 50 = 20 pounds .
With a fully rotating pendulum , as opposed to an oscillating one , The bob has a down force at bottom dead centre of 5 times its static weight . The big question is of course , what price has to be paid for that increase . My next quest is to answer that question .

Neptune,
What the math ignores is a velocity less than a (acceleration of gravity) and not being perpendicular to it.
A weight moving towards top center could have no cf.

neptune · « **Reply #1877 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:57:58 PM »

@Cloxxki . If you read exactly what I said that I did not claim that a heavier pendulum was more efficient , merely that it makes more swings before stopping .Indeed I was at pains to point out why I felt that a heavier pendulum would not give more efficiency .
@Norman . You asked where I got the fact That in a fully rotating pendulum ,the bob weighs 5 times normal . This was a direct quote from the paper by Jovan Marjanovic . It would make sense to me because , in a pendulum released from horizontal , the figure is 3 . Pendulum frequency is [almost] independent of amplitude . The time taken for a high amplitude swing is the same as for a low amplitude swing . So , with a maximum swing , the speed will be faster at bottom dead centre , and as centrifugal force = M Vsquared over radius , The centrifugal force will be proportional to the velocity squared . So if the velocity were doubled [which it is not ] C force is multiplied by 8 . Anyone agree/disagree ? As I said last time , what matters is what price we have to pay .
@Johnny874 . You say that a weight moving towards top dead centre can have no CF . That may be no bad thing . After the bob rises above horizontal we have already harvested the CF at max velocity , and are going into the beam reset phase . The main gain above the horizontal is when the bob is falling , and gaining extra acceleration towards bottom dead centre . Laters , Ken .

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1878 on:** January 09, 2012, 03:09:00 PM »

@neptune
I was not attacking you in person, only anyone who'd come up or believe such a notice without making remarks.

Both the inventor and prime replicator practice fuzzy math, and are left manually pushing a device with no output work, which in theory should be swinging at least as well as a simple pendulum (indefinitely), yet doesn't.

I see the @SO extracting energy from a pendulum by moving it pivot up and down, along a slight curve. But there doesn't seem to be any useful output. If the CW hits a surface, I suppose that's the "work" done, create vibrations. If a frictionless 2SO (magnetic pivots, inside vacume chamber) would have the CW swinging freely, I actually wuld not know why the 2SO would slow down. If it did, I would probably learn stuff about efficiency of energy transfer.

Think of an engine's crank shaft. Input from the cylinder is only temporarily available, less than perfect leverage (only 90Âº is) will result in energy loss through heat. A dropping CW has energy to transfer, but will it always go 100% somewhere useful within the system? I fear there are going to be losses unless elaborate escapements and added.

neptune · « **Reply #1879 on:** January 09, 2012, 07:50:00 PM »

@Cloxxki . No worries , no offence taken . Raymond Head admits that he is not the worlds best mathematician , and indeed has asked for help on at least one of his videos . But the great thing is that he gets stuck in and builds things . I have come to the conclusion that even those who claim to be professional mathematicians are still confused about this device . Mathematical proofs of the OU of the 2SO are a dime a dozen .But where is the self runner . At least Jovan Marjanovic , the mathematician has built small wooden models .At this time , I am fairly sure that the 2so is not overunity . I am not sure if it might be using a rotating pendulum , and so, rather than try to calculate , I intend to do practical tests . I had a sudden burst of energy today , and made a start on my new rotary model . I work on a zero budget using 100% recycled parts . I found a nice piece of timber yesterday whilst out cycling , and that inspired me to get started. I also did an experiment today . I inverted my bicycle and added a 1 KG weight to the front wheel . I put the bathroom scales under the handlebar . At bottom dead centre , the scales showed a weight gain of about 4 Kg . Watch this space .
Regards to all , Ken .

johnny874 · « **Reply #1880 on:** January 10, 2012, 01:50:56 AM »

Quote from: neptune on January 09, 2012, 07:50:00 PM

@Cloxxki . No worries , no offence taken . Raymond Head admits that he is not the worlds best mathematician , and indeed has asked for help on at least one of his videos . But the great thing is that he gets stuck in and builds things . I have come to the conclusion that even those who claim to be professional mathematicians are still confused about this device . Mathematical proofs of the OU of the 2SO are a dime a dozen .But where is the self runner . At least Jovan Marjanovic , the mathematician has built small wooden models .At this time , I am fairly sure that the 2so is not overunity . I am not sure if it might be using a rotating pendulum , and so, rather than try to calculate , I intend to do practical tests . I had a sudden burst of energy today , and made a start on my new rotary model . I work on a zero budget using 100% recycled parts . I found a nice piece of timber yesterday whilst out cycling , and that inspired me to get started. I also did an experiment today . I inverted my bicycle and added a 1 KG weight to the front wheel . I put the bathroom scales under the handlebar . At bottom dead centre , the scales showed a weight gain of about 4 Kg . Watch this space .
Regards to all , Ken .

Neptune,
>> I also did an experiment today . I inverted my bicycle and added a 1 KG weight to the front wheel . I put the bathroom scales under the handlebar . At bottom dead centre , the scales showed a weight gain of about 4 Kg . Watch this space . <<

NOT POSSIBLE ! You posted the math yourself that shows that centrifugal force is relative to mass. If you noticed, the mv^2 was Liebniz's calculation for momentum. As such, for a 1kg weight to have 2 kg's of force, the math you said supports you states that it would have to fall 9.87 meters. To have the force of 4 kg's, it would have to fall 2 x 9.87 meters or 19.74 meters to have the force you measured.
I think this is why some like myself have taken the time to learn how math and science either supports or does not support our efforts. It's a time saver and leads to better idea's.

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1881 on:** January 10, 2012, 11:34:50 AM »

Quote from: johnny874 on January 10, 2012, 01:50:56 AM

Neptune,
>> I also did an experiment today . I inverted my bicycle and added a 1 KG weight to the front wheel . I put the bathroom scales under the handlebar . At bottom dead centre , the scales showed a weight gain of about 4 Kg . Watch this space . <<

NOT POSSIBLE ! You posted the math yourself that shows that centrifugal force is relative to mass. If you noticed, the mv^2 was Liebniz's calculation for momentum. As such, for a 1kg weight to have 2 kg's of force, the math you said supports you states that it would have to fall 9.87 meters. To have the force of 4 kg's, it would have to fall 2 x 9.87 meters or 19.74 meters to have the force you measured.
I think this is why some like myself have taken the time to learn how math and science either supports or does not support our efforts. It's a time saver and leads to better idea's.

Jim, without knowing the turning speed of the wheel, you can't say it's impossible to read 4kgs.
If the scales would have datalogging with infinitely high resolution and refresh rate, I can tell you over the duration of one full cycle, it would register exactly 1kg providing consistant cycles.
In Neptune's case, the rest of the setup (bike) probably weighed enough to keep it grounded. A lightweight setup would just bounce, or when fixed to the scale, register negative weight for part of the cycle.

Take a simple 1kg weight, suspend it from a spring fish scale, and press some clay onto the gauge. Give it some really good swings either in the horizontal or vertical plane, and read the gauge's clay impression. Be prepared to be impressed, end suffer a tennis arm injury in the process.

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1882 on:** January 10, 2012, 11:43:15 AM »

Neptune, I think scientists and pseudo-scientist think too hard about the 2SO.

As I see it now, a physics teacher in college should be able to present the 2SO to students, and ask them to express it in formulae. I am tempted to do it myself, and consider I would have to dig up each and every part-formulae from the internet, by utter lack of knowledge.
It really is not that complicated, and for initial math approach, the crossbar could be enhanced to have the pivots on either ends be restricted to move only in a vertical plane, with constant crossbar length.

Important starting point is the CW. Is it supported or suspended freely. weight of pendulum and CW, and lenth of pendulul en the 2 pivots from the central crossbar pivot.

I think it only gets complicated when the professor hints students the answer will prove significant overunity and conservation of energy as a result will not get them a pass for the exam. Then they need to get into fuzzy math. Answer are to range from 3.75 to 12x overunity, it turns out :-)

johnny874 · « **Reply #1883 on:** January 10, 2012, 01:23:55 PM »

Quote from: Cloxxki on January 10, 2012, 11:34:50 AM

Jim, without knowing the turning speed of the wheel, you can't say it's impossible to read 4kgs.
If the scales would have datalogging with infinitely high resolution and refresh rate, I can tell you over the duration of one full cycle, it would register exactly 1kg providing consistant cycles.
In Neptune's case, the rest of the setup (bike) probably weighed enough to keep it grounded. A lightweight setup would just bounce, or when fixed to the scale, register negative weight for part of the cycle.

Take a simple 1kg weight, suspend it from a spring fish scale, and press some clay onto the gauge. Give it some really good swings either in the horizontal or vertical plane, and read the gauge's clay impression. Be prepared to be impressed, end suffer a tennis arm injury in the process.

Cloxxki,
If he spun the bicycle wheel by hand to achieve a velocity of 9.87m/s, it is on him to make that statement. He did not. A weight falling while attached to a bicycle wheel with a radius of 25cm could not reach such a velocity.
And if he wishes to be critical of people who use math, his "experiments" need to be accomplished adhering to some type of standard.

Jim

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1884 on:** January 10, 2012, 04:22:48 PM »

Quote from: johnny874 on January 10, 2012, 01:23:55 PM

Cloxxki,
If he spun the bicycle wheel by hand to achieve a velocity of 9.87m/s, it is on him to make that statement. He did not. A weight falling while attached to a bicycle wheel with a radius of 25cm could not reach such a velocity.
And if he wishes to be critical of people who use math, his "experiments" need to be accomplished adhering to some type of standard.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Let's start by seeing the example as it is. 1G we get for free, the scale is placed level. That's 1kg right there.

Then, the CF part.
I am going to presume a high speed spin on the wheel. 5m/s at 0,25m from the axle (not a very big wheel, weight sitting against wheel). I am expecting violence from that, having some cycling experience.

Wiki gave me:

Fc= (m*vÂ²)/r
Fc= (1 * 5Â²)/0.25 = 100N
100N ~ 10kg.
Plus the one for a vertically placed scale, makes ~11kg of scale pressure.

I tend to mess up math, so please correct me.

Please note the difference between KE from an earth's free fall and the CF from a weight taking a sharp turn.
Consider that a weight falling to a little wheel at 5m/s downward, and existing 5m/s upward, accelerated vertically in the time it takes to make half a revolution. Wet finger in the wind math: pi*0.25=0,8m on the wheel during half revolution, or 0.16s. Average (!) vertical acceleration is 10/0.16=60m/s or >5x G extra on top of the 5m/s it had.

My gut tells me the peak pressure at top bottom, in fact identical to the constantly spun weight, will amount to twice the acceleration because often 2's end up in useful formulae. I'd have to dig it up, though, but there'd offer the 11 figure I found above for you. :-)

Calculating back the velocity Neptune's wheel was spinning for you is a matter of reversing the formula. I am getting ~2.73m/s right now.

Fc= (1*2.73Â²)/.25=7.5*4=30N (~3kg). Add the 1kg for the level scales and there's your 4kg peak pressure.

johnny874 · « **Reply #1885 on:** January 10, 2012, 06:25:57 PM »

Quote from: Cloxxki on January 10, 2012, 04:22:48 PM

Hi Jim,

Let's start by seeing the example as it is. 1G we get for free, the scale is placed level. That's 1kg right there.

Then, the CF part.
I am going to presume a high speed spin on the wheel. 5m/s at 0,25m from the axle (not a very big wheel, weight sitting against wheel). I am expecting violence from that, having some cycling experience.

Wiki gave me:

Fc= (m*vÂ²)/r
Fc= (1 * 5Â²)/0.25 = 100N
100N ~ 10kg.
Plus the one for a vertically placed scale, makes ~11kg of scale pressure.

I tend to mess up math, so please correct me.

Please note the difference between KE from an earth's free fall and the CF from a weight taking a sharp turn.
Consider that a weight falling to a little wheel at 5m/s downward, and existing 5m/s upward, accelerated vertically in the time it takes to make half a revolution. Wet finger in the wind math: pi*0.25=0,8m on the wheel during half revolution, or 0.16s. Average (!) vertical acceleration is 10/0.16=60m/s or >5x G extra on top of the 5m/s it had.

My gut tells me the peak pressure at top bottom, in fact identical to the constantly spun weight, will amount to twice the acceleration because often 2's end up in useful formulae. I'd have to dig it up, though, but there'd offer the 11 figure I found above for you. :-)

Calculating back the velocity Neptune's wheel was spinning for you is a matter of reversing the formula. I am getting ~2.73m/s right now.

Fc= (1*2.73Â²)/.25=7.5*4=30N (~3kg). Add the 1kg for the level scales and there's your 4kg peak pressure.

Cloxxki,
Correct me if I am wrong, but are we posting in a gravity powered section ? If so, hand spinning does not help to understand whether or not things work.

neptune · « **Reply #1886 on:** January 10, 2012, 07:02:17 PM »

HI Guys , well if nothing else , I stirred up a hornets nest here , or shall we better say ,stimulated some lively controversy and discussion , which as long as there is no name-calling , which is the case , then this can only be a positive thing . The wheel was only allowed to spin under the influence of gravity .
I will be the first to admit that the experiment was less than perfect . The weight consisted of 8 microwave oven magnets near the rim on a 26 inch wheel . The real problem was that the scales only supported the handlebar , and the seat was on the ground acting as a pivot . The bike was so unstable in this position that I actually had to support it a bit with my hand . What a crap experiment , you will say . But the point is that I actually did the experiment .I have nothing but admiration for Mathematicians . My problem is with mathematical theories that have no relationship with what happens in the real world . Virtually everyone has access to a bicycle and a bathroom scale . If you have nothing else to improvise a !KG weight , use a plastic bag of sand , or a 1 Litre bottle of water . If you think my set up was imperfect , which it was , then improve on it . Get a result . And then , if you so desire , write pages and pages of formulae to support your results . The more actual experiments that are done , the more reliable the data . What do you say , fellows ?
Regards , Ken .

johnny874 · « **Reply #1887 on:** January 10, 2012, 09:24:04 PM »

Quote from: neptune on January 10, 2012, 07:02:17 PM

HI Guys , well if nothing else , I stirred up a hornets nest here , or shall we better say ,stimulated some lively controversy and discussion , which as long as there is no name-calling , which is the case , then this can only be a positive thing . The wheel was only allowed to spin under the influence of gravity .
I will be the first to admit that the experiment was less than perfect . The weight consisted of 8 microwave oven magnets near the rim on a 26 inch wheel . The real problem was that the scales only supported the handlebar , and the seat was on the ground acting as a pivot . The bike was so unstable in this position that I actually had to support it a bit with my hand . What a crap experiment , you will say . But the point is that I actually did the experiment .I have nothing but admiration for Mathematicians . My problem is with mathematical theories that have no relationship with what happens in the real world . Virtually everyone has access to a bicycle and a bathroom scale . If you have nothing else to improvise a !KG weight , use a plastic bag of sand , or a 1 Litre bottle of water . If you think my set up was imperfect , which it was , then improve on it . Get a result . And then , if you so desire , write pages and pages of formulae to support your results . The more actual experiments that are done , the more reliable the data . What do you say , fellows ?
Regards , Ken .

Doubt it was gravity powered. If you check the first post which Stefan did, there is a link to a discussion about what you say you understand. It is the basis for the TSO. I have visited his web site and while he wondered how to loop back any gain, he at no time claimed to be pursuing OU.
What he realized is that cf increased the efficiency of a weight on a pendulum which allowed it to operate hand pumps more efficiently. For his work, he did receive recognition.
As for myself, I do have a legit build I am doing which will work much better than this even though you disagree. And it is by considering math before building that helped me to understand how the different forces might best be used. Your way is to vague. No pictures or videos. You rely on everyone else to fill in your blanks so you can say, you've learned what I knew. You and AB Hammer would get along great. You both reject engineering and math. Bye

neptune · « **Reply #1888 on:** January 10, 2012, 09:41:14 PM »

@Johnny874 .What a strange post ! I have no doubt whatever that it was gravity powered , and I had the distinct advantage of being there at the time . I rely on everyone else to fill in my blanks ? Is that not what this forum is about . Any claims that I make , I am never pedantic , and am willing to learn . No pictures or videos ? When I build something worth showing , I will show it . I have never knowingly rejected engineering or mathematics . Until I lost the sight of my left eye , I made my living as a self employed Engineer . You have a legitimate build even though I disagree ? How can I disagree since as far as I know you have shown neither pictures nor videos . My way is too vague ? My way is limited by the state of my health and lack of finances . My way is my way and your way is your way . There is room for different approaches . There is nothing to be gained by animosity . I shall continue with my experiments as I see fit , and of course people are free to agree or disagree with the results as they see fit . Regards , Ken .

johnny874 · « **Reply #1889 on:** January 11, 2012, 01:08:32 AM »

Neptune,
I have shown pictures of what I am working on. Always have.
I have the same problems you do. No one has ever allowed me to use them as an excuse.
Jim

edited to add: Neptune, when i was going through chemo and radiation therapy, I was the only person building. I did not let cancer stop me from what I had started and this is why I am going to finish this build of mine as I am able. The details will be important. It will after all be a machine.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2237437 times)

norman6538

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

johnny874

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

neptune

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Cloxxki

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

neptune

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

johnny874

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Cloxxki

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Cloxxki

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

johnny874

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Cloxxki

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

johnny874

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

neptune

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

johnny874

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

neptune

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

johnny874

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !